W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

Re: wire stack words and diagram

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:49:29 +0200
Message-ID: <3D997DB9.8050906@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
CC: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>

+1

Jean-Jacques.

Mark A. Jones wrote:
> 
> Heather, Editors:
> 
> Here is some additional text which would fit at the end of the
> Packaging section in the wire stack text that you sent around:
> 
> <maj>
> For some applications, a purely XML-based representation of the
> payload is awkward or inefficient.  Examples of such cases include
> payloads which contain binary data, recursively structured envelopes,
> syntactically ill-formed XML fragments, etc.  The most common
> Packaging tactic in such cases is to introduce a multipart
> representation which carries the SOAP envelope and its related data 
> (commonly referred to as "attachments").  "SOAP Messages with 
> Attachments", published as a W3C note 
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments], is one proposed scheme;
> "Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME)"
> [http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-02.txt] is
> another.  An abstract model for SOAP 1.2 attachment features 
> [http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-af/] specifies how SOAP 1.2 bindings use 
> attachments and how those attachments are referenced from the envelope.
> </maj>
> 
> 
> --mark
> 
> Mark A. Jones
> AT&T
> 
> 
> Heather Kreger wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the words I have for the wire stack.  Same caveats as before.
>>
>> (See attached file: wire.ZIP)
>>
>> Heather Kreger
>> Web Services Lead Architect
>> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
>> kreger@us.ibm.com
>> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
>>
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:49:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT